State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)

Citation: State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Parent Document: State v. Hemingway, 196 Vt. 441 (2014)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2014-05-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2673207/state-v-hemingway/ ↗

Full Text

1,036 chars

¶ 22.        
Additionally, we reject the State’s argument because plea
agreements—although binding on the prosecutor—are not binding on the sentencing
court.  V.R.Cr.P. 11(e)(2).  If the court accepts a plea agreement,
it is bound to adopt a disposition “provided for in the plea agreement or a
less onerous disposition.”  V.R.Cr.P. 11(e)(3).  Thus, the
requirement that defendant be provided with a “certificate explicitly setting
forth the conditions upon which he or she is being released,” 28
V.S.A. § 252, is not satisfied by the plea agreement, because the
conditions of release are ultimately still set by the court at sentencing, and
not by the prosecutor during plea negotiations.  The conditions of release
thus do not necessarily reflect all the prosecutor seeks.[2]  The terms of the plea agreement,
therefore, may not be used alone to prove a violation of probation; only a
signed probation order may be so used.  None of the cases cited by the
State persuade us to ignore this explicit requirement of § 252.

Other Sections in This Document (105)

Full Text